Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:47:56 -0400
From:   Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>, jiri@mellanox.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: drop_monitor: use IS_REACHABLE() to guard
 net_dm_hw_report()
Message-ID: <20200311104756.GA1972672@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
References: <20200311062925.5163-1-masahiroy@kernel.org>
 <20200311093143.GB279080@splinter>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200311093143.GB279080@splinter>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:31:43AM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 03:29:25PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > In net/Kconfig, NET_DEVLINK implies NET_DROP_MONITOR.
> > 
> > The original behavior of the 'imply' keyword prevents NET_DROP_MONITOR
> > from being 'm' when NET_DEVLINK=y.
> > 
> > With the planned Kconfig change that relaxes the 'imply', the
> > combination of NET_DEVLINK=y and NET_DROP_MONITOR=m would be allowed.
> > 
> > Use IS_REACHABLE() to avoid the vmlinux link error for this case.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
> 
> Thanks, Masahiro.
> 
> Neil, Jiri, another option (long term) is to add a raw tracepoint (not
> part of ABI) in devlink and have drop monitor register its probe on it
> when monitoring.
> 
> Two advantages:
> 1. Consistent with what drop monitor is already doing with kfree_skb()
> tracepoint
> 2. We can remove 'imply NET_DROP_MONITOR' altogether
> 
> What do you think?
> 
Agreed, I think I like this implementation better.
Neil